I am honored that Marc Danziger invited me to blog at Winds of Change.
Please allow me introduce myself and provide a few basic ideas that will guide my contributions to this site:
I recently returned to the United States after five years in the Middle East working in media, marketing, and market research. After living through two wars in Lebanon, the war in Iraq from two perspectives (Baghdad and Kurdistan), seeing the military and technological power of both Iran and Israel and their effect on their neighbors, working under the ever-watching eyes of dictators and secret police, and seeing how quickly deserts can bloom into international luxury destinations, my opinions are shaped more by experience than by ideology.
I returned to the US to work full-time on Barack Obama's campaign in Indiana, and I am still overjoyed and flabbergasted that we managed to carry the state. David Plouffe's brilliant strategy worked, and the support of thousands of volunteers from Indiana, Illinois, around the country, and around the world helped us carry the day.
Lebanon
Living in Beirut seriously challenged my beliefs, while simultaneously reinforcing them and providing nuance. Lebanon's democracy faces insurmountable challenges. It is rift by internal divisions, and manipulated from abroad. At best, this yields painfully slow reform. At worst, chaos and snipers rule.
Myriad ideologies live and accumulate power side by side in Lebanon, from Neo-Cons to Arab Nationalists to Trotskyists to religious radicals of every faith. Their ideologies, like all ideologies, generally distort reality and prevent proper interpretation of data presented to them.
The political survivors in Lebanon are the amoral pragmatists. The unsung heroes of Lebanon are the pragmatists who look to a philosophy to guide them in interpreting information presented. The heroes remain ensconced in obscurity, while the ideological radicals bring violence to the streets and the amoral secure the greatest profit at the expense of everyone else.
Despite the drawbacks, the wars, the hundreds of thousands killed in the name of forgotten or redefined causes, Lebanon remains a vibrant, thriving, cosmopolitan country that always manages to survive the crisis and succeed in the face of stacked odds. The democratic messiness and often anarchic freedoms create an unparalleled environment for civic debate, transnational exchange, intellectual investigation, and observations of the beautiful, brilliant and horrific capabilities of humanity: the best and the worst side by side.
Few Lebanese in Lebanon would sacrifice their chaotic, yet tolerant system in favor of the "stability" Syria and other dictatorial regimes claim to provide when negotiating with the West and Israel over control of Lebanon, while steamrolling over Lebanese self-determination.
However, far more Lebanese flee Lebanon in favor of stable (US, Brazil, Australia, Saudi Arabia) or profitable (Port Harcourt, Nigeria) destinations. The population of Lebanese citizens living abroad greatly exceeds the number of Lebanese in Lebanon. The international system is intrinsically linked to the instability in Lebanon, while also providing a way out for the majority unwilling to raise a family in a country forever sacrificing children on the alter of freedom, democracy, excessive tolerance, and ideology.
The implications for American foreign policy are striking in that most Lebanese support the ideas the US exports: civic freedoms, religious tolerance, the right to bear arms, democracy, a free market, stable currency. Yet, Lebanon remains tumultuous, and US foreign policy in Lebanon regularly results in unconscionable tragedy.
Implications for US Foreign Policy
In an environment like Lebanon, American policymakers, analysts, and commentators must fully understand the milieu and make decisions based on the facts on the ground rather than on petty domestic concerns or ideological dreams. America loses credibility and lives when enacting policy that does not conform with what actually exists outside of Congressional hearing rooms and DC newspaper desks.
Nothing angered me more while living in the Middle East than to hear Americans on both the right and the left support or berate Bush Administration foreign policy without having a clue whether specific policies worked. The Bush Administration was often wrong, but also got quite a few things right. The same can be said of the Clinton Administration, and I am sure of all other administrations.
For example, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the exact things needed to be said in Lebanon in 2005: Hezbollah is not going away any time soon, thus it must be dealt with accordingly while newly sovereign Lebanese government institutions are strengthened. At different times, this opinion was unpopular with both the right and the left in the United States, and it is still unpopular in Lebanon. For some Americans and most Lebanese, it is not the idea that is unpopular. It is the individual and administration who delivered this idea that sours its verity. For others, it is an inability to accept reality: that it is presently impossible to militarily defeat Hezbollah.
There is no place for partisanship in foreign policy and national security. Military might can fail, and public diplomacy leaves much to be desired: policy decides where each should be employed most effectively. I have found that the best way to formulate good policy is through healthy debate, to which I hope to contribute while writing at Winds of Change.
Living in Beirut seriously challenged my beliefs, while simultaneously reinforcing them and providing nuance. Lebanon's democracy faces insurmountable challenges. It is rift by internal divisions, and manipulated from abroad. At best, this yields painfully slow reform. At worst, chaos and snipers rule.
Myriad ideologies live and accumulate power side by side in Lebanon, from Neo-Cons to Arab Nationalists to Trotskyists to religious radicals of every faith. Their ideologies, like all ideologies, generally distort reality and prevent proper interpretation of data presented to them.
The political survivors in Lebanon are the amoral pragmatists. The unsung heroes of Lebanon are the pragmatists who look to a philosophy to guide them in interpreting information presented. The heroes remain ensconced in obscurity, while the ideological radicals bring violence to the streets and the amoral secure the greatest profit at the expense of everyone else.
Despite the drawbacks, the wars, the hundreds of thousands killed in the name of forgotten or redefined causes, Lebanon remains a vibrant, thriving, cosmopolitan country that always manages to survive the crisis and succeed in the face of stacked odds. The democratic messiness and often anarchic freedoms create an unparalleled environment for civic debate, transnational exchange, intellectual investigation, and observations of the beautiful, brilliant and horrific capabilities of humanity: the best and the worst side by side.
Few Lebanese in Lebanon would sacrifice their chaotic, yet tolerant system in favor of the "stability" Syria and other dictatorial regimes claim to provide when negotiating with the West and Israel over control of Lebanon, while steamrolling over Lebanese self-determination.
However, far more Lebanese flee Lebanon in favor of stable (US, Brazil, Australia, Saudi Arabia) or profitable (Port Harcourt, Nigeria) destinations. The population of Lebanese citizens living abroad greatly exceeds the number of Lebanese in Lebanon. The international system is intrinsically linked to the instability in Lebanon, while also providing a way out for the majority unwilling to raise a family in a country forever sacrificing children on the alter of freedom, democracy, excessive tolerance, and ideology.
The implications for American foreign policy are striking in that most Lebanese support the ideas the US exports: civic freedoms, religious tolerance, the right to bear arms, democracy, a free market, stable currency. Yet, Lebanon remains tumultuous, and US foreign policy in Lebanon regularly results in unconscionable tragedy.
Implications for US Foreign Policy
In an environment like Lebanon, American policymakers, analysts, and commentators must fully understand the milieu and make decisions based on the facts on the ground rather than on petty domestic concerns or ideological dreams. America loses credibility and lives when enacting policy that does not conform with what actually exists outside of Congressional hearing rooms and DC newspaper desks.
Nothing angered me more while living in the Middle East than to hear Americans on both the right and the left support or berate Bush Administration foreign policy without having a clue whether specific policies worked. The Bush Administration was often wrong, but also got quite a few things right. The same can be said of the Clinton Administration, and I am sure of all other administrations.
For example, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the exact things needed to be said in Lebanon in 2005: Hezbollah is not going away any time soon, thus it must be dealt with accordingly while newly sovereign Lebanese government institutions are strengthened. At different times, this opinion was unpopular with both the right and the left in the United States, and it is still unpopular in Lebanon. For some Americans and most Lebanese, it is not the idea that is unpopular. It is the individual and administration who delivered this idea that sours its verity. For others, it is an inability to accept reality: that it is presently impossible to militarily defeat Hezbollah.
There is no place for partisanship in foreign policy and national security. Military might can fail, and public diplomacy leaves much to be desired: policy decides where each should be employed most effectively. I have found that the best way to formulate good policy is through healthy debate, to which I hope to contribute while writing at Winds of Change.